• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Just stop paying for it. After just a few weeks you’ll realize it was a silly addiction. There’s lots of great games that don’t require a subscription.

  • gradyp@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s why I went back to PC gaming. As an aging man with children, I am no longer interested in having a bleeding edge gaming machine so I went to consoles for a while. It was too painful keeping a subscription on something I don’t often play so I didn’t bother with a PS5 and got a steamdeck instead.

  • BiggestBulb@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’ma be the devil’s advocate - even if they were free, eventually someone would have made it a subscription-based model since PSN servers cost money. Sure, it’s not a lot of money, but it’s money.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m not so sure. Steam servers also cost money. They make way more money from their cut of sales. On console the same thing happens. If not requiring the subscription gets more users, then you make more money by not having it.

      They aren’t charging because it costs money to run. They’re charging because it’s more profitable.

  • Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Remember when sony had a few database hacks and all the bootlickers were like “see paid services are better!” Fuckin idiots

  • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    There’s a lot of gamers in this thread too young to remember how overloaded and miserable the free console game servers were.

    Microsoft was like “chuck us like ~$5 per month and we will put up enough servers so the games are actually playable”. At the time, it was the best deal available for console gaming.

    Honestly an argument could be made it was the most economical way to play online, in general, at the time. The console cost was subsidized, and the online servers were arguably at-cost, and you really only needed to buy one copy of Halo to join the fun.

  • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Its funny that people are like “look at PC gaming its so free” while paying to host their own servers for individual games, partying up in Discord Nitro and buying battle passes for games they already bought for full price.

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Who pays for nitro? Or battle passes for that matter?

      And the only server hosting Ive ever paid for was $8 for 3 months. Thats not a big deal compared to console online prices

  • rmuk@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s not like Microsoft invented the idea of a paid online gaming service with Live. Total Entertainment Network for PCs and Sega MegaNet for consoles came out well ahead of it.

  • Jax@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Yes, World of Warcraft certainly had nothing to do with it.

    The gaming phenomena that made billions from their subscription model had absolutely no influence, whatsoever.

    How could Microsoft do this?